WADA chum wrote:
Davis report wrote:
UK Sport instructed staff not to answer any correspondence on the matter .
What a simple way to shut down appeals esp as UKS themselves refused to provide evidence.
Why was the police not called to get involved.
WADA chum wrote:
Davis report wrote:
UK Sport instructed staff not to answer any correspondence on the matter .
What a simple way to shut down appeals esp as UKS themselves refused to provide evidence.
Why was the police not called to get involved.
Authorities wrote:
WADA chum wrote:
What a simple way to shut down appeals esp as UKS themselves refused to provide evidence.
Why was the police not called to get involved.
They were but were told that a tranc of documents had gone missing.This was the hard copies of the DHL waybill.
Michelle V wrote:
Authorities wrote:
Why was the police not called to get involved.
They were but were told that a tranc of documents had gone missing.This was the hard copies of the DHL waybill.
The record of the waybill would have been available online
Dhl ex employee wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
They were but were told that a tranc of documents had gone missing.This was the hard copies of the DHL waybill.
The record of the waybill would have been available online
The online record showed that the sample never entered any part of the DHL system so it could never have followed the path that the chain of custody claimed it had .
How did the hearing take place with the chain of custody intatters
Dhl ex employee wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
They were but were told that a tranc of documents had gone missing.This was the hard copies of the DHL waybill.
The record of the waybill would have been available online
The police would have been very interested as to why the normal “ forensic” evidence of the waybill being live contradicted a drug tester who said he used dhl but could not remember how or where.
UKS refused to provide the DCO’s expenses sheet for the collection of urine.This would have given detail as to where the DCO went and would have been an aide to his memory as the DCO said he could not remember what he did.
Paul ed wrote:
UKS refused to provide the DCO’s expenses sheet for the collection of urine.This would have given detail as to where the DCO went and would have been an aide to his memory as the DCO said he could not remember what he did.
Who actually refused.
Michelle V wrote:
Dhl ex employee wrote:
The record of the waybill would have been available online
The police would have been very interested as to why the normal “ forensic” evidence of the waybill being live contradicted a drug tester who said he used dhl but could not remember how or where.
Every single part of this case stinks.
Nearly all the smells would have been obvious to all the authorities esp as they were all joined up by funding from the same source.
Travesty wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The police would have been very interested as to why the normal “ forensic” evidence of the waybill being live contradicted a drug tester who said he used dhl but could not remember how or where.
Every single part of this case stinks.
Nearly all the smells would have been obvious to all the authorities esp as they were all joined up by funding from the same source.
It was UKS that provided funds for the lab, UKS funded UKA , UKS funded the Anti Drug Direcorate .
It was UKS that refused to allow its staff to correspond with Dr Davis on his paper that was written after the Data Commissioner ordered the hidden evidence to be released.
What is the government doing about UKS and Edwards?
Ex UKS wrote:
What is the government doing about UKS and Edwards?
My guess is trying to find someone to take the hit.
Possible someone retired.
Michelle V wrote:
Ex UKS wrote:
What is the government doing about UKS and Edwards?
My guess is trying to find someone to take the hit.
Possible someone retired.
And I know who has just resigned. Will that person take the hit.
Michelle V wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
My guess is trying to find someone to take the hit.
Possible someone retired.
And I know who has just resigned. Will that person take the hit.
Has Prof Cowen retired yet?
Kings College choir wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
And I know who has just resigned. Will that person take the hit.
Has Prof Cowen retired yet?
He misled ministers at House of Commons.
Paul ed wrote:
Kings College choir wrote:
Has Prof Cowen retired yet?
He misled ministers at House of Commons.
And data never exsisted foi request ..
Really wrote:
Paul ed wrote:
He misled ministers at House of Commons.
And data never exsisted foi request ..
Yes, said data existed and could have it but then Kings had to admit to FOI office that they never had contemporaneous data curves/ calibrations.
They said that calibration data could not be released as it would be injurious to heath.
What were they hiding?
Paul ed wrote:
They said that calibration data could not be released as it would be injurious to heath.
What were they hiding?
That they never did the most basic science or what they were contracted to do via IS0 17025.
WADA chap wrote:
Paul ed wrote:
They said that calibration data could not be released as it would be injurious to heath.
What were they hiding?
That they never did the most basic science or what they were contracted to do via IS0 17025.
Who signed the contract to follow ISO 17025?